Hitler, Bin Laden...

Originally posted by twhitehead
Explain why. Do you think it would not save lives?

I am against war in general, but I recognise that occasionally force is necessary - for example when rescuing people from an evil dictator. But I find the current method - shooting all the people you are trying to rescue, whilst letting the dictator escape - rather old fashioned.

If someone has to die, even one soldier or civilian then let it be the leader.

How many assassination orders does it take before you, yourself, become the "evil dictator"?

Originally posted by rwingett
How many assassination orders does it take before you, yourself, become the "evil dictator"?

Are you a moral relativist?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Are you a moral relativist?

In the sense that none of our morality is absolutely fixed. Why?

Originally posted by rwingett
How many assassination orders does it take before you, yourself, become the "evil dictator"?

Its irrelevant. Dictatorship and assassinations on foreign ground have nothing to do with each other.

Originally posted by rwingett
In the sense that none of our morality is absolutely fixed. Why?

If you can determine that a particular person is so evil and damaging to the world, that
removing them from it (by capturing and imprisoning, or killing them) is preferable to
leaving them in place, then that moral calculation stands on it's own regardless of how
many times you make it.

The number of leaders you assassinate is irrelevant to the morality of doing so.

If you can agree that you can objectively rate one moral system above another in terms of
goodness, and can determine that a particular person is in objective terms morally bad and
evil, then you can make the assessment as to whether or not assassinating them would on
the whole be a moral good.


This is leaving aside for the moment the practicalities of whether assassinating them is the best
option or is even a viable one.

Also being a dictator is about how you govern and treat your own people/society.
If these decisions are being made by a collective of elected people against foreign governments
then calling them dictators is wrong and meaningless. It's just not an applicable term.


Also, I dispute that 'none of our morality is absolutely fixed'. I don't think that this is at all true.
This isn't to say that all morality is fixed, some morality is fixed, some isn't.
The existence of grey doesn't preclude the existence of black and white.
The existence of black and white does not preclude the existence of grey.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its irrelevant. Dictatorship and assassinations on foreign ground have nothing to do with each other.

Yes, they do. Assassination is the hallmark tactic of a repressive police state. It is incompatible with a society that fashions itself as the defender of "freedom", "liberty" and "the rule of law."

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, they do. Assassination is the hallmark tactic of a repressive police state. It is incompatible with a society that fashions itself as the defender of "freedom", "liberty" and "the rule of law."

Nonsense.

We are not talking about domestic assassination. We are talking about foreign assassinations. They are totally different things.

Next you will be telling me that a soldier is guilty of police brutality when he shoots someone and thus state that have a standing army must be police states run by brutal dictators.

Originally posted by rwingett
It is incompatible with a society that fashions itself as the defender of "freedom", "liberty" and "the rule of law."

What societies 'fashion' themselves as, and what they really are, are two totally different things, as we can see with the US. 'defender of freedom' cracks me up. 🙂

Originally posted by rwingett
Yes, they do. Assassination is the hallmark tactic of a repressive police state. It is incompatible with a society that fashions itself as the defender of "freedom", "liberty" and "the rule of law."

Not true. (Assassination's may be done by repressive states, but so are many things,
The Nazi's preferred wearing trench coats and had them as part of their uniforms, this
doesn't make trench-coats bad, or wearing them a sign of support for Hitler.
And idea or action is good or bad on it's merits in the given situation not because of who
had or did it.)

Those things you talk about are INTERNAL to a society, not relevant to how it interacts
externally with other societies.

If a society is going to impose it's will on another, and has a choice in how it does it, then
if it is determined that assassination would achieve the goals with fewer deaths on both
sides then that is preferable and a valid choice over other options like war which would
have more deaths.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If you can determine that a particular person is so evil and damaging to the world, that
removing them from it (by capturing and imprisoning, or killing them) is preferable to
leaving them in place, then that moral calculation stands on it's own regardless of how
many times you make it.

The number of leaders you assassinate is irrelevant to the ...[text shortened]... ck and white.
The existence of black and white does not preclude the existence of grey.

I deny that anyone is qualified to decide who is worthy of assassination and who is not. And even if you could get a universal consensus on whether someone deserves assassination, the danger of legitimizing such a policy far outweighs the potential benefit.

Originally posted by rwingett
I deny that anyone is qualified to decide who is worthy of assassination and who is not. And even if you could get a universal consensus on whether someone deserves assassination, the danger of legitimizing such a policy far outweighs the potential benefit.

Surely the same applies to any foreign policy that may lead to the death of someone? Yet I doubt you have as much objections to farm subsidies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Nonsense.

We are not talking about domestic assassination. We are talking about foreign assassinations. They are totally different things.

Next you will be telling me that a soldier is guilty of police brutality when he shoots someone and thus state that have a standing army must be police states run by brutal dictators.

Once a policy of assassination is legitimized, I do not trust governments to restrict its application solely to foreign targets. It is an expansion of state power to a dangerous degree. Such policies are always introduced as a means for countering extreme and isolated circumstances, but once accepted they have a way of institutionalizing and expanding themselves to the detriment of a much broader segment of society. Today you're assassinating someone like Bashar al-Assad and tomorrow you're assassinating whomever happens to disturb the interests of big business, whether it be foreign or domestic.

Originally posted by rwingett
I deny that anyone is qualified to decide who is worthy of assassination and who is not. And even if you could get a universal consensus on whether someone deserves assassination, the danger of legitimizing such a policy far outweighs the potential benefit.

That's moral relativism.

And I think it's hugely dangerous.
Because it IS possible to say with certainty that some moral systems are better than others,
and some actions are better than others.

I have no problem for example stating with absolute conviction that sharia law is objectively
morally bad, and should be opposed at every opportunity.
I don't need to have perfect moral knowledge to be able to say with certainty that sharia law is bad,
and that our legal/moral systems are better than that. And I can objectively demonstrate that this is true.

Also you need to justify your assertion that the 'danger of legitimizing such a policy far outweighs
the potential benefit' and not just assert that it's true.

This is your problem, you assert stuff as true with no justification, either logical, or evidentiary.
I want to know WHY you think that the dangers ALWAYS outweigh the benefits.
I want you to justify that assertion, because I can easily think of situations where I can see the
benefits easily outweighing the costs.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Surely the same applies to any foreign policy that may lead to the death of someone? Yet I doubt you have as much objections to farm subsidies.

For the 1,000th time, I do NOT support farm subsidies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What societies 'fashion' themselves as, and what they really are, are two totally different things, as we can see with the US. 'defender of freedom' cracks me up. 🙂

It is laughable because the US obviously does not practice what it preaches. Endorsing a policy of assassination would only make things worse in that regard.